`BUCK' MCKEON'S MATH SIMPLY DOESN'T COMPUTE.

Byline: Dr. Sid Gold Candidate for U.S. Congress

Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon is a master of the Washington shell game. But no matter how he shuffles the projected budget surplus, his math simply doesn't add up. In a recent guest column, McKeon defends the Republican tax plan with the same old Washington doublespeak we've been hearing for years.

The Congressional Budget Office projects a $3 trillion budget surplus over the next 10 years - although there is no guarantee these surpluses will materialize if the economy slows down or if Congress continues to break its self-imposed spending caps. We also know the national debt stands at $5.4 trillion.

McKeon's plan for the $3 trillion budget surplus would supposedly ``lock-box'' $1.8 trillion for Social Security and ``pay down'' the national debt by $2.2 trillion. McKeon also supports a $792 billion tax cut. Let's see: $1.8 trillion plus $2.2 trillion plus $792 billion equals $4.8 trillion.

The projected surplus is only $3 trillion. So where does McKeon come up with the extra $1.8 trillion? Is it just bad math?

The truth is, you can't lock-box Social Security revenues and pay down the national debt at the same time. You can either save Social Security or pay down the debt, but you can't do both and still offer a $792 billion tax cut. The Republicans know this. McKeon admits it himself when he states: ``under the lock-box bill, until a reform plan is developed (for Social Security), then the money goes into paying down the $5.4 trillion national debt.''

And then what, congressman? The budget office predicts the government will owe Social Security more than $2.6 trillion by the year 2009 under the Republican plan (a debt increase of $1.9 trillion over 10 years.) Where will the money come from when the baby boomers are old enough to start collecting Social Security? Will Congress come up with some new math to solve the problem?

McKeon is also correct when he says ``the biggest problem with Social Security has been that Social Security payroll tax surpluses have been diverted to pay for general government programs, rather than being kept in a secure fund for retirees.'' He's absolutely right. Over the past 30 years, the government has borrowed nearly $800 billion from Social Security - the same amount the Republicans now propose to give away as tax cuts. In truth, the Republicans have no plan to repay this previous debt to Social Security. Their tax proposal threatens the solvency of the trust fund. And their ``lock-box'' plan continues to allow Social Security revenues to be used for purposes other than Social Security - in this case, paying down the debt.

There is a big difference between paying down the debt and paying off the debt. Under the Republican plan, with money collected from Social Security surpluses, the government would pay down approximately $2.2 trillion of the national debt while at the same time increasing the debt owed to Social Security. What this means is that while the current national debt of $5.4 trillion would be reduced to $3.2 trillion over 10 years, the debt to the Social Security trust fund would increase from $800 billion to nearly $2.6 trillion by 2009 (this according to the CBO's own predictions). The total combined debt in 10 years would be $5.8 trillion - more than it is today. McKeon is simply trying to trick taxpayers with his old Washington shell game.

I'm certainly not opposed to tax cuts. I sincerely believe every man and woman who works for a wage or salary in this country is overtaxed. Problem is, we've allowed our government to put our children's future in hock.

Now is the time to make responsible decisions to prevent this debt from being passed along to future generations. During these prosperous times, we should be responsible citizens. Let's honestly commit ourselves to saving Social Security and paying off the national debt. We have a vested interest, if not for ourselves, for our children and grandchildren.

Each year American taxpayers pay nearly $300 billion just in interest payments on the national debt. Simply stated, we could save $300 billion per year by eliminating the national debt. It won't happen overnight, but we can start moving in the right direction. Instead of playing a shell game with the American people, Congress should play it straight.

First off, we should repay the debt we owe Social Security and we should guarantee Social Security revenues are not used for any other reason - period. The non-Social Security portion of the surplus should be committed to serious national debt reduction. Then, when genuine surpluses actually materialize (and as debt reduction begins to reduce our annual interest obligation), Congress should pass tax relief for the wage earners and small business owners who are in the backbone of our economy.

I support Democratic tax reforms that would significantly reduce the tax burden on millions of middle-income wage earners. I support elimination of the marriage penalty. I support increase in IRA contribution limits. I support increasing the earnings limit on Social Security recipients.

And I support the elimination of the estate tax on families with assets of $2 million or less, which encompasses more than 98 percent of all American families.

It's time to put people first and put an end to politics as usual.